.MIL retirement.. no pay until 59 yrs old. may take effect soon (sample letter added on page one)

If I read this right, no more 20 yr retirement, and whatever cash you put into the plan will not be able to be accessed (without a huge penalty) until you are 59yrs old.

Also If I read it correctly us 20yr guys will only draw 25% instead of 50% at retirement if this plan is implemented.

Damn made it 20yrs in and now they are gonna fuck me

Look at the slide show in this link
http://www.slideshare.net/BrianLucke/modernizing-the-military-retirement-system

Wow. I feel for ya, Sarrrnt. This is bullshit.

Fuck mike mullen, what a douche.

"The new plan would enhance fairness........"

I guess this is the current administrations was of redistributing our retirements.........

if this load of dung were to pass then what next, a class action lawsuit against the .gov for breach of contract?

more discussions..

http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?1590597-New-Retirement-Plan-Defaulting-on-your-promises-with-unfair-plan/page2

Would those already collecting retirement be cut off between now and the time they reach 59?

That would generate a bit of anger.

They have to give the present members their retirement benefits, but new members joining will pay into the Federal TSP.

Their plan specifically does *NOT* grandfather anybody.

That is just despicable.

well, damn

And they point to the retirement plan as the only reason to stay in past 10. We'll see

I just sent this, and all can use it as a sample letter(change your MOS and years of service)

Honorable Jeff Miller

Sir, I would like to take a few minutes of your valuable time to address a major concern “The new military retirement proposal” that seems to be gaining traction. I have served this Nation on active duty for 20 years and have deployed overseas twice in defense of this nation. I signed up this last enlistment indefinite, meaning I agreed to 20 plus years of service. I did this with the promise that I would receive 50% at the time of my retirement.

Now it seems that this might not be the case. It is very upsetting to think that after all my brothers/sisters in Arms have done for this Nation we have been lied to. I, as well as many others have given our youth and best years of our life to our nation under the assumption that we would be compensated for all our hardships. It is crazy to compare what I do and have done to a civilian counterpart, for one I do not have a civilian counterpart. I am an Infantryman who fights our Nations enemy's in close combat. I have yet to hear of a civilian job like that. If this new plan goes into affect I would not be able to receive my retirement until I am 60 years old. That means I would be right back to square one once I got out competing with 20 year old men and women for a second career.

It is not my fault that our government spends more than it makes. I signed on for many reasons one of which was the small retirement. The Active duty Military makes up a small number in our society, at the least we could fulfill the promise made to them when they joined.
I have many friends in the military and we all agree that this is a terrible idea. In my opinion this would gut the force and leave our nation very weak during a very unstable time for our nation. Thank you for your time. This is a major point of contention for me as well many other Military members. I really hope you do not support this idea and stand up for our Nations Service Members in this terrible injustice.


RLTW!
SFC Tharpe

It would be impossible under the newer FERS with someone with eg. ten years to qualify for an adequate pension as he would have to catch up TSP with what the newbies are paying.

What a crock. The only realistic way to make such large changes is to make the new plan only for new members or a way to opt in for the very few that might work for.
I work for a state government agency and they just tried to drastically change our retirement medical without any grandfathering of guys just about to retire. If they were smart and put in the grandfathering section it just may have passed. (no raise since 2005, no I'm not crying for myself)

I was in the reserve and guard components for 9 years and had to think about walking away from their retirement program. The fact that I wouldn't recieve any payout until age 60(IIRC) was one of the largest factors in saying F it, make it up on a civilian job and invest it. I walked but this was during the Clinton years and just got tired of my units being closed down or reflagged and having to find a new home.

No regrets for getting in and no regrets for getting out.

This has nothing to do with FERS.

As one of the retirees now viewed as useless and expensive by my old employer I’d like to add my thoughts on the economic downsides of making the military a career:

- Sure you can get a job once you retire, but try getting to the top of that new career when you walk in the door at age 40+. Unless you’re a 4 star you are looking at perpetual middle management at best. And by the way, you have no seniority if they lay people off and your new job doesn’t have anything significant in the way of retirement either.

- Your spouse has marginalized her career for 20+ years, so she’s earned far less than her stay in place civilian counterparts. Now she’s trying to start a permanent career at 40+ years, she’s in the same boat as you.

- Your civilian friends have owned their house for over 20 years and have paid the mortgage off or are close to it, you bought a house when you retired and are looking at 20-30 years of mortgage payments. You’ll be lucky to pay it off before you die.

- Your kids don’t qualify for in-state tuition in the state just you retired in, in fact they don’t qualify for in-state tuition anywhere due to the requirements.

Everyone I ever knew that reached the 10 year mark had to make the decision; “do I stay for 20 or do I bail now?” It’s a hard decision to make, but if I was looking at this retirement package when I had to make the call I would have walked away.

Bottom line is a professional military is expensive, but you get what you pay for. If they can’t fund for the 17% that make 20 years they can kiss the all volunteer military goodbye.

PS: Thanks Mike Mullen for sticking up for the troops. Enjoy the huge pay some defense contractor pays you to be on their board, you useless asshole.

Completely agree with all of the above...How thankful our country is and quickly they like to forget when it becomes inconvenient to support the military.

I seem to recall that the very issue of Military payment and retirement was the political issue that led to the downfall of the Roman Republic.

It is a damn shame.

The people will cry out asking "who will save us" and we shall say NO! And I would not stop the blame at Mike Mullen...

Yeah- there's a plan. Lets cut the retirement benefits of our military retiree's and give it to the illegals we invite to invade our country from down south. After all they are treated better than honest taxpaying citizens. Free healthcare, free education, free cars, free cellphones, free birthcontrol - Let's see, what else can we give the illegals by shortchanging those who stood up and stood out? It's like Pogo said " we have met the enemy and he is us." Good luck to us.

If not FERS than it would be a similar type program

Not the recommendation they've published.

Link to FOX News Article

After reading it, what don't the brass get?

Married E5 and below, get by (E3 and below barely even get by) and single guys don't give a rats ass about money and most aren't thinking about retirement until at least their second tour comes around.

This is unbelievable.

Well FML

Well in the bigger picture I guess we all got to take a bite of the shit sandwich... oh wait I forgot everything is on the table except congressional salaries

So the people in charge cut everything but their salaries? The most corrupt group of "leaders" ever to inhabit the halls of congress?

Ya makes perrrrrfect sense

Congress if you are listening start by setting an example and cut your salaries and budgets first not the people who die to ensure people can enjoy the freedoms in this country.

They are so full of it I might wear hip waders to tour the grounds

Why would you want to piss off some of the worlds most dangerous people, I dont get it? While the likely hood of that happening is slim because it would be political suicide not to mention economic disaster for more than the people who are retired.

This is how great republics turn into military dictatorships.

This is how revolutions start.





Not that I condone anything of the sort.

So would we still get a blue ID card?

That alone is worth its weight in gold in this day and age.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/defense-secretary-leon-panetta-warns-against-more-cuts-in-pentagon-budget/2011/08/04/gIQAWM8AvI_story.html

If a bipartisan congressional panel cannot reach an agreement on $1.5 trillion in savings over the next decade, an automatic trigger would slash an additional $600 billion from the Pentagon budget.

So when the congress cant.... (like they care) reach a decision on this ummmm savings how fast will the RIF name lists come out? I bet they come out in a week or two and they wont limit them to just personnel under 15 years. Just sayin.

I have serious concerns about this whole issue as I think we are hanging our ass out there to far, cutting to much and we now have China and others bucking for a shot at a small fight.

Hardly seems worth it. The majority of males in my family have died around the ages of 55-65 due to cancer. By the time I'd be able to collect there's a good chance I'd already be 6 feet under or close to it. I imagine this is their goal. More guys dying from age and ailment (possibly caused by their service) before they have to pay out. Scam all the way around. I can't imagine many will stick around for very long after something like this passes. The main incentive to stay was the retirement.

Excellent analysis of the situation.

Bingo. Especially in combat arms, or for soft MOS's in combat arms brigades.

Not only does it put more stress on your body than just about every civilian job that you can likely get paid more to do with the same experience (construction, oil rig, etc) but it puts plenty of stress on you're family, which I don't think is all that common in civilian jobs, where after you punch your time card for the day, you go home, and WORK stays at WORK. Not even mentioning that in time of War, there's a very increased risk of serious bodily injury or death. I know myself and plenty of guys like me who would do one, maybe two enlistments to serve their country, but after that, it would be time to find a career that will actually offer me something when I retire, and wont get me killed and drive away my family in the process. Do this and you'll keep E6 and below stocked pretty easily, E7 and above crowd will be nowhere to be seen, and you can't blame them.

I agree 110%, the morons in charge don't seem to get that.

I think they're making taking care of retirees out to be a lot more expensive than it really is considering that a decent amount of that 17% die within 5-10 years of retirement.

I think you are EXACTLY spot on to why he has no problem fucking his fellow retirees and service members.

I'm glad I only have a few years invested and can get out without feeling like I wasted too much time.

I'll have 9 years in when I reach the end of my current enlistment next year. This may make my decision as to if I stay or go VERY easy on me.

CBS
August 15, 2011

Military Pensions No Longer Untouchable


CBS Evening News, 6:30 PM

SCOTT PELLEY: Good evening. The military retirement system has long been considered untouchable, alongside Social Security and Medicare, but in these days of soaring deficits it seems everything is a potential target for budget cutters. And tonight, a Pentagon-sponsored study says military pensions are no longer untouchable. They're unaffordable. Sharyl Attkisson has details of a plan to dramatically overhaul a long cherished veterans' benefit.

SHARYL ATTKISSON: CBS News has learned high level closely held meetings are taking place at the Pentagon regarding a radical proposal to overhaul retirement for the nation's 1.4 million service members, a bedrock guarantee of military service.

The proposal comes from an influential panel of military advisors called the Defense Business Board. Their plan, laid out in a 24-page presentation "Modernizing the Military Retirement System," would eliminate the familiar system under which anyone who serves 20 years is eligible for retirement at half their salary. Instead, they'd get a 401(k) style plan with government contributions.

They'd have to wait until normal retirement age to collect. It would save $250 billion dollars over 20 years.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin is former director of the Congressional Budget Office.

How important is that the military attack its retirement issues?

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN: It's very important. We're talking about an underfunding that starts to look like hundreds of billions of dollars in the next 20 years. And if you want to maintain the core mission, which is to defend the nation and have the strategic capabilities we need, we can't have all their money tied up in retirement programs.

ATTKISSON: Advocates say the new system would not only save money, but would also be fairer. It would give benefits to those who serve less than 20 years. Right now, they walk away with nothing. And it would give more money to those in combat or high risk situations.

The proposal leaves a lot of blanks to be filled in, including whether to exempt current service members so their plans won't change.

We spoke to some active duty troops who agreed costs must be cut, but worry the number of experienced soldiers will dwindle with no incentive to stay enlisted for 20 years.

The proposal is at its early stages and would require congressional approval, but it's clear military retirement is no longer untouchable. A Pentagon spokesman said the military retirement system is, quote, "a fair subject of review" but that no changes will be made without careful consideration. Scott?

PELLEY: Sharyl, what's Congress likely to make of this?

ATTKISSON: We put out a few phone calls today and learned that separate from this effort, Senators Graham and McCain are coming up with their own ideas to revamp the military retirement system and make sure that in general taxpayers get the most bang for their buck. So it looks like one way or another change is coming.

PELLEY: Thank you, Sharyl.

I hit 16 years active next month. If this happens and there is no grandfather clause, I am well and truly fucked. I've put aside a little in savings and TSP but not enough to cover the complete loss of my retirement benefits.

The only option would be to stay in as long as humanely possible. But the fact is some MOS's ( Like 88M, mine) bottle neck at E-6 and it is incredibly difficult to get above E-7, so staying in for 30 years is not a realistic option and with the new RCP rules and QMP making a comeback I may have no option but to retire at 20 years if I'm not lucky enough to make E-7.

So what the fuck do I do now? If this happens there will be alot of guys like me with absolutely no options.

Don't worry McGramnesty is on it.

Absolutely nothing will happen to present service members or gov people, federal law protects that, BUT nothing can stop them from instituting new retirement programs for new guys.

Got this at work today...

by Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

8/16/2011 - *WASHINGTON *–– The military retirement isn't going to change any time soon, Defense Department officials said.

"There's no immediate plan to affect retirement," Navy Adm. Mike Mullen told service members at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, July 31.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said any changes to military retirement should be studied carefully and should be "grandfathered" so the military doesn't break faith with those in the service.

Pentagon officials are reviewing all areas of the defense budget, and the goal of the review is to "inform the decisions and strategies that we have to make," Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said Aug. 4.

"So that's going to be key to what decisions we make and what areas we look to for savings," the secretary added.

In support of the department's efficiency initiatives, a small group of Defense Business Board members was tasked to develop alternative plans to the current military retirement system. The group briefed its findings and draft recommendations to the full board during their July 21 quarterly meeting. The full board approved the recommendations, and the group will issue a final report by the end of this month.

The Defense Business Board provides DOD's senior leaders independent advice and recommendations "on effective strategies for the implementation of best business practices on matters of interest to the Department of Defense," according to Pentagon officials.

Meanwhile, a Pentagon spokeswoman said, officials are reviewing the board's recommendations.

"Any recommendation to change the military retirement system must be approached with thoughtful analysis, to include considerations of impacts to recruiting and retention," Eileen Lainez said. "While the military retirement system, as with all other compensation, is a fair subject of review for effectiveness and efficiency, no changes to the current retirement system have been approved, and no changes will be made without careful consideration for both the current force and the future force."

Federal law is what controls all the pay and retirement plans, and can be changed at will.

there is *NOTHING* stopping them from changing the law to force everyone to the new plan, and this is, in fact, precisely what this plan proposes. There is absolutely no difference in difficulty of changing future retirements and changing current government employees' retirements.

Agreed! We're 1 vote away from killing the all-volunteer military.

Everyone needs to see this announcement for what it is; a trial balloon to see if they can get it approved. To me the most important thing is safeguarding the best military the world has ever seen, which is the insurance policy for our nation. With only 1% of the population paying the freedom dues for the other 99% and a Congress that has very few veterans we can’t count on them making the right decision. I am already drafting a letter to my representatives telling them what a foolish decision this would be.

This statement makes me wonder if i want to try making the USMC a career

You shouldn't be basing that decision off of retirement benefits, especially since you haven't even spent a day in yet. Figure out if you LOVE the Marine Corps first, if the answer is anything other than " Fuckin-A", don't stay in. But I seriously doubt your generation is going to get half of what we were promised, even if this current OBAMAnation doesn't become law.

What Ive heard they are going to do is something similar to a 401k type thing where they stick a percentage of pay into a fund, mainly for the people who do their 4 or 5 and get out.

The sky is not falling and if this were to come to pass, every congressman would be voted out of office along with the President. There would be droves of officers resigning their commissions and reenlistment's would stop. No one will want to be a serviceman in time of war or at any time with no light at the end of the tunnel. Bankruptcies would skyrocket and the screams from the retired military community would be heard around the world.

Want to make defense budget cuts? Get us out of Iraq, Afghanistan. Close alot of overseas bases and eliminate 3/4 of the flag officer positions. Release the sale of thousands of currently restricted old military items through DRMO. Stop the services from wasting millions changing their uniforms ever other year. Stop building multi-million dollar fancy apartment like barracks for single soldiers. Stop spending millions trying to replace the M16/M4. Freeze the building of all new weapon systems for a few years. Just to start. We did more with less in my time, won't hurt the current generation to do the same.

Sad fact is, an E1 investing in a 401K style account today will make vastly more money in retirement than I am, even without employer matching funds.

My opinion.

They can target present servicemembers and gov people to RIFs to make sure service members not get their pensions and gov employees to get certain protections as in CSRS and FERS. Provided defined benefits (AKA pensions) elininations will create such a large sucking sound that absolutely most of the senior members past their first enlistment will volunteer out.

Yea but that E-1 would not be able to touch his 401k until he hits 59yrs old under this plan

This plan sucks, period!!

Free

If something like comes to fruition, I believe that part will not be included and weeded out during the congressional debates. And keep in mind, this paln was presented to the Pentagon by a civilian company hirted by the Pentagon to find ways to trim the budget. Plan was conceived by a bunch of pencil pushing bean counters with no concept of the ramifications. this plan is not being pushed by the Pentagon or the administration.

The sky is not falling.

Welcome to the NG retirement plan.

Altough the later part of your assessment is correct, DBB is a part of the DoD established by Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41CFR §102-3.50(d)

One we could probably save a billion dollars if we got rid of, but a part of DoD non the less.

While this is off but yet on the subject (if writing to someone, make sure to get the facts right)...............

..........what has changed? In the early 70's, dad made our residency in Texas, Henry B. Gonzales's district. So despite the family being overseas for a year or so
, despite me being in school in another state for a year, I still got in state tuition in Texas. During my time in the Navy, despite being on the East Coast, my car had Texas license plates, I still voted on a Texas ballot.

Have they changed those laws about having a state of residency regardless of where one is stationed? Cannot one be separated if not in, then to their home state? Or do just certain states not see in state tuition that way?
____________________________________________________________
("Are you Carl Kolchak and do you reside in the city of Las Vegas?", Kolchak about to be arrested for murder, (w,stte), "The Night Stalker")

They've actually made it even better so that spouses can also choose a state of residency.

This isnt going to go away:



Panetta and the question of military retirement
Washington Post
By Walter Pincus, Published: August 29

Less than two months on the job and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has put his foot on a Pentagon third-rail issue by saying he is willing to look at reform of the 100-year-old military retirement system to save money.

A recent example: The first question to Panetta after a recent general talk at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., was from an officer in the business school. The officer referred to the threatened $600 billion in national security reductions and then asked, “Many of us have seen the Defense Business Board’s recommendation for retirement, what is your stance on the military’s retirement, sir?”

It first drew laughter, then applause, from the audience, according to the Defense Department transcript.

Panetta, a politician and former budget director, did the normal non-response response: “My approach to it has been to say, let’s look at every area to see whether or not we can make the important reforms, et cetera.”

But he got more specific, using the example of young people who join the military and then leave after a four-year tour.

“Right now,” Panetta said, “under the present system, they get nothing. So there is some thought that maybe they’re entitled to some retirement to be able to move those funds to other systems. I think that’s worth looking at.”

Once into the subject, Panetta showed that he understood where he had stepped and quickly added, “My view is we ought not to break faith with those that serve, that serve now and that if there were any changes that were to be made in the future, it would not . . . happen without grandfathering their benefits.”

Former defense secretary Robert M. Gates, who took a few spears for proposing increased retiree payments for health care, only gave passing reference to the need for retirement pay reform. He left it to the Defense Business Board to study this issue and make final recommendations, which Panetta is to receive shortly.

The board, made up of private-sector corporate officials often involved with defense business, does studies and provides advice to the defense secretary. Its findings after studying the military retirement system got far less publicity July 21 than its initial suggestion that the Pentagon adopt a new 401(k)-type plan based on the existing military personnel thrift savings plan.

The board’s findings are rooted in some startling facts. “Military retirement [plans] exceeds levels in the private sector” because they pay retirees immediately after 20 years of service [not waiting to age 60 or 65] at a higher percentage of their annual pay, which “has no comparison in the private sector.”

It calls the retirement plan “unfair” because “83 percent of those who serve will receive no retirement pay,” meaning those who serve five, 10 or 15 years. Risk or combat roles play no part in determining retirement eligibility, except for those who suffer disabling wounds or injuries.

Those in that minority who go for 20 years or more “are endowed with a lifetime benefit.” Perhaps more damning, “most of the troops engaged in combat serve far less than the required 20 years,” with the result that only “12 percent to 13 percent of enlisted troops earn retirement pay.”

Then there are the growing costs. This year the government contribution to the military retirement plan will be $46 billion, which does not include $64.1 billion in unfunded liability for the plan. According to the board, if the system is not changed, “future liability will grow from $1.3 trillion (of which only $385 billion is funded) to $2.7 trillion by fiscal 2034,” and it could be larger as life expectancy increases.

The board states that this retirement plan “was designed for an era when life spans were shorter,” military pay “was not competitive with civilian pay” and second careers for former service members “were rare since military skills did not transition easily to the private sector.”

Today, according to the board, the Defense Department on average “pays retirees 40 years of retirement benefits for 20 years of service.” Because military skills are in demand in the private sector, “second careers are now common for those retiring in their 40s.” As a result, retention by the services of those with 20 years experience “remains difficult — 76 percent leave between years 20 and 25,” according to the board.

The tentative answer, according to the board’s initial presentation, is to expand “the existing Uniformed Military Personnel Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), [where individuals can put aside retirement funds that grow tax free] but with the government providing annual contributions.” There could be a doubled contribution to those in combat or other bonuses for those undertaking high-risk jobs or serving on hardship tours.

As with many private plans, funds would vest after three or five years, be transferable upon leaving the service and be payable at age 60 or 65.

While Panetta insists he has made no decisions, he has clearly been influenced by the board presentation. As he said to Pentagon reporters eight days ago, “The question that is at least legitimate to ask is, ‘Is there a way for those future volunteers to shape this that might give them better protection to be able to have some retirement and take it with them?’ ”

Andrew J. Bacevich, a retired Army officer and military analyst, wrote in The Washington Post on Aug. 22 that the effect of the board’s proposed solution “would be to transform profession into trade, reducing long-serving officers and noncommissioned officers to the status of employees, valued as long as they are needed, expendable when they are not, forgotten the day they leave.”

Noting that the volunteer force “costs a bundle,” Bacevich concedes: “Trimming retirement outlays appears to offer one way to keep that force fiscally viable.”

Apparently there's no country for old soldiers.

Do these arseholes know what they're going to do to recruitment and retention? Retention in my AFSC was already in the single-digits after initial ETS. It can't get much lower.

They have a HELL of a lot of fat to trim before they get to something like this... a HELL of a lot.

Copyright © 1996 - 2013 :: AR15.Com LLC :: All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.